Polarization as Plague
Season One Finale (Part One)
A first presidential impeachment… the COVID pandemic with great dissension over shutdowns, social distancing and mask-wearing…Then our hotly contested 2020 election followed by major efforts at election reversal, culminating with insurrection and a second impeachment trial...
It’s been quite a year, much too full of subject matter since we started researching and producing Purple Principle episodes on the theme of polarization. Episode 22, “Polarization as Plague,” is Part One of our two-part season finale. Here we strive to gain a better understanding of the phenomena of hyper-partisanship before detailing the more efforts to combat the problem in part two of the finale upcoming.
To do so, we start off in the neuroscience laboratory with previous featured guests, Dr. Abigail Marsh of Georgetown (Ep 4, “Heard from the Herd”) and Dr. Jay Van Bavel (Ep 9, “Your Brain on Partisanship”) for a quick lesson on the brain structures underlying political orientation and the brain functions fueling partisanship. (Except, of course, for the brains of indie-minded Purple Principle listeners: your brains are safely in the middle of this overly wide spectrum and able to grasp cognitive complexity.)
But brains haven’t changed in many millenia. Why are we becoming more partisan of late? To answer that, look no further than the polarizing nature of our two party political system, as noted by both Dr. Van Bavel and noted author and historian, Dr. Geoffrey Kabaservice (author of Rule and Ruin, Oxford Press). Then consider how partisan media sizes up our tribal tendencies and the two party system to ratchet up negative partisanship.
On this topic, we consult media experts from two different but equally influential domains: Dr. Robert Elliott Smith (University College London) on the polarizing algorithms behind social media and Dr. Dominik Stecula on the ever increasing drumbeat of partisan, opinion-based content on cable news.
And as if that wasn’t enough, Dr. Charles Wheelan (Founder, United America) then explains how our primary election system takes the partisan situation from bad to worse. What then is a polarized nation and society to do? Several experts weigh in on that tough question in this fast-moving finale focused on that other national plague of ours, the hyperpartisan plague.
Please tune in, share us on social media, review us on Apple Music, and subscribe to our newsletter, The Purple Principle in Print, which collects the latest and greatest articles, trends, and issues around the perils of partisanship.
Source Notes
Lauren Sibilia. Vermont General Assembly.
Abigail Marsh. Georgetown University.
Abigail Marsh. The Laboratory on Social and Affective Neuroscience.
Across the Table. Pew Research Center.
Political Polarization in the American Public. Pew Research Center.
DeAngelis, T. (2001). “All you need is contact.” American Psychological Association 32:10.
“Fourth Congressional District.” Congressman Jason Altmire.
Trevor Potter. Campaign Legal Center.
“A primer on gerrymandering and political polarization.” Brookings Institute.
Geoffrey Kabaservice, Niskanen Center
India Opzoomer (9/24/20). “America Speaks: What do they think about cross-party marriages?” YouGov.
Alaskans for Better Elections - Yes on 2 for Better Elections
“Ranked Choice Voting 101.” FairVote.
Transcript
Robert Pease (host):
This is The Purple Principle. I’m Robert Pease.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And I’m Emily Crocetti.
Robert Pease (host):
And Emily, we’ve been through a lot in the U.S. over just the past seemingly endless year or so. Like a decade’s worth in just one year.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
First off, there was all that dissension over social distancing, shutdowns and masks during the most lethal pandemic in a century.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Holding a Presidential impeachment.
Robert Pease (host):
Debating and denying election results.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And all that was before things turned really ugly, on January 6, 2021, right in our nation’s capital.
Robert Pease (host):
And now another impeachment.
Robert Pease (host):
When we began researching The Purple Principle a year ago, we knew these United States were partisan.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
But we didn’t realize we were this partisan.
Robert Pease (host):
On this episode of The Purple Principle, we attempt a deeper understanding of this other plague of ours, the hyperpartisan plague.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
So today we’re featuring some of the most important insights from the several dozen experts we’ve interviewed this first season.
Robert Pease (host):
Which is really necessary because understanding polarization is not a simple thing. There’s lots of variables and feedback loops.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Let’s start today with the dean of political polarization, Dr. Keith Poole, who spent his career analyzing congressional floor votes all the way back to the first Congress in 1789.
Keith Poole:
But beginning roughly around the late 1990s and into the 2000s, the parties started separating to the point now where it's not really liberal vs. conservative. It's just devolved into pure hatred of the other party. And I worry about the stability of our institutions because of that.
Robert Pease (host):
According to Dr. Poole’s data, the U.S. Congress in the past 20 years has been at its most partisan in over 100 years, and possibly since the Civil War.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
But it’s not a single issue that divides the country today as slavery did around the Civil War. Today it’s not just issues that divide us, but identity.
Robert Pease (host):
And that’s tricky because policy disagreements might be worked out. But identity disagreements are deeply personal.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Jason Altmire, former 3-term centrist member of the U.S. House, on how that played out once the COVID crisis struck.
Jason Altmire:
This is a great concern of mine as this national crisis has unfolded. I've been very concerned about this idea that it's gotta be somebody else's fault. That's unfortunately very different from what it used to be in this country, where crises would bring people together. It would be the one unifying factor that was out there where people would put politics aside. It is exactly the opposite now. It only exacerbates the problem of partisanship. It highlights the divide of the country, and you are seeing it with COVID-19.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Laura Sibilia, an independent legislator in the Vermont Assembly, feels this partisanship trickling down to the state level
Laura Sibilia:
I feel like it's growing and I feel like it's, you know, moving down. I've seen the Governor called a RINO, you know, I've seen other lawmakers called DINOS, you know, I don't even know if that's how you say it. I presume it is, uh, for collaborating. I think my constituents are reacting at the federal level and, um, that is that it comes, it ends up coming down.
Robert Pease (host):
In the U.S. Congress, and in one of our most civil state legislatures.
Jason Altmire:
Who has the upper hand are the partisans on both sides, the Republicans and the Democrats.
Laura Sibilia:
We have seen a really an unprecedented attack on facts and knowledge. And Vermonters are not immune from that.
Robert Pease (host):
How did we get to this very partisan point? That’s a big question which we also cover in our newsletter, “The Purple Principle in Print.” You can subscribe on our website. More info at the end of this episode. But for our present purposes, we need to start with Emily’s favorite subject: neuroscience.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
That’s just normal. My brain’s interested in other brains (as are all brains, whether they know it or not). And it was so great to have two blue ribbon brain experts on the topic of polarization in Season One: Jay Van Bavel of NYU and Abigail Marsh of Georgetown University.
Jay Van Bavel:
We found that conservatives were more dogmatic, but if you looked at the far left, those people were pretty dogmatic too. Not as dogmatic as the far right, but more dogmatic than moderates.
Abigail Marsh:
It used to be the case that people would be less comfortable having dinner with people of other races. And now people say they're less comfortable having dinner with people from different political backgrounds.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Both emphasized that the roots of political disagreement are biological. Jay Van Bavel on the structure of the brain:
Jay Van Bavel:
So conservatives effectively had more gray matter volume density in their amygdala, and liberals have a greater amount of volume density in their anterior cingulate cortex. What it simply suggests is that there are differences in how our brains are wired that are correlated with our political preferences.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Abigail Marsh on the function of the brain:
Abigail Marsh:
A herd of muskox, when they believe they're being threatened by wolves, they cluster themselves together in a very tight way. Threat does that to any social species that you cluster together with those who are like you in an attempt to ward off the threat.
Robert Pease (host):
And both had interesting things to say about the indie brains of our Purple Principle listeners.
Jay Van Bavel:
So the independent brain, I would love to say that it's radically different, but what we find is the independent brain is pretty much just in the middle.
Abigail Marsh:
The sort of person who's less likely to gravitate toward the extreme of either end of the political spectrum is more likely to be comfortable and able to grasp cognitive complexity.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
But the problem remains: as a species we are hardwired for tribalism and for that negative partisanship that demonizes the other side.
Robert Pease (host):
Then add to that our two-party system.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Terrible idea.
Robert Pease (host):
That’s for sure. Whose idea was that? But whoever it was, somehow in the U.S., unlike the vast majority of countries, we have set up a zero sum game, especially in the minds of our most tribal partisans, more commonly known as politicians.
One of the most interesting things about taking a 360-degree approach to polarization is that when experts from different disciplines look at the problem and come up with really similar conclusions.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Jay Van Bavel, Neural Scientist at NYU, originally from Canada, talking about how our two party system is more polarizing than Canada’s multiparty system.
Jay Van Bavel:
The interesting thing about that multi-party system is, if you decide that you don't like the liberal party, you could vote for the new democratic party. And yet you still don't have to vote for a party you dislike, whereas in the United States, it's a zero sum game of two teams. I suspect that's part of why two-party systems are more susceptible to partisanship and polarization.
Robert Pease (host):
And U.S. political historian Geoffrey Kabaservice.
Geoffrey Kabaservice:
You know, in a rational system, or at least the system that's more along the lines of the multi-polar, multi-party systems of other countries, we would have at least four different parties, probably more like six. But that's not the system that we have.
Robert Pease (host):
Jay Van Bavel on how confining political identities can be..
Jay Van Bavel:
Because if you've been a party member of the Democrats or Republicans for 10 or 20 years – for you to completely abandon that is deeply threatening to a lot of people. So there's lots of incentives that people have psychologically to just simply ignore contradictory information.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Computer Scientist Robert Elliott Smith on the effects of social media.
Robert Elliott Smith:
Quantifying people is always something that has not been very far from intolerances and bigotries. In many ways, that's why I make the statement now that I believe algorithms are prejudiced.
Robert Pease (host):
A neural scientist, studying brain response; a computer scientist studying algorithms. But on the same wavelength: our opinions would be so much more diverse if not for those polarizing forces.
Jay Van Bavel:
Liberals are a cluster over here, and conservatives are a cluster over there. But in reality, it's actually a continuum and people fall all along the continuum.
Robert Elliott Smith:
People are not so simple as Democrat and Republican. People are not that simple.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
People are not that simple. They do lie on a continuum. Or they would without so many polarizing forces at work. And maybe that is the most hopeful point in our investigation so far. Andrew Gelman of Columbia University, one of the most respected statistical analysts of partisanship, speaks to that point.
Andrew Gelman:
So the big picture is that voters tend to dislike the other party more than they like their own party. So a lot of the polarization is people feeling that the other party is too extreme, not that their party is quite in the right position. We're less polarized than you think, but we're more polarized than we used to be.
Robert Pease (host):
The question then is what is making us more polarized in recent time? To answer that, look no further than the nearest news feed. Again, Dr. Robert Elliott Smith, an expert on the artificial intelligence which drives those feeds.
Robert Elliott Smith:
But the situation right now is that we have this algorithmically mediated media that's trying to place us into categories largely for purposes of advertising. That of course feeds us our news, that aggravates our emotions.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Cable news is another huge factor. Dr. Dominik Stecula of Colorado State has analyzed the transformation of cable content over time.
Dominic Stecula:
What happened is that back in the late seventies, early eighties, if you were following the news, roughly a third of the time you would encounter something like a reference to a politician or a quote from a politician. Now fast forward to the mid-nineties, we're now at 56%. The majority of content is now partisan. Fast forward to 2016. Now it's two thirds, at 67%. So now, essentially it's not just people in the echo chambers exposed to hyper-partisanship – it's everybody that even residually follows the news.
Robert Pease (host):
Robert Eliott Smith on social media, Dominik Stecula on broadcast media.
Robert Elliott Smith:
So effectively, it's the worst kind of narrowcasting. The internet isn't broadcasting; it’s narrowcasting.
Dominic Stecula:
Now you have a lot of outlets out there and there's fierce competition.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Polarizing social media, partisan cable news.
Robert Elliott Smith:
Facebook really does broadcast hate speech. There's no doubt about it. They do.
Dominic Stecula:
There's been a proliferation of opinion content.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
But it’s also interesting how different experts in very different disciplines have really similar suggestions on how to vaccinate, metaphorically speaking, our polarization plague. Abigail Marsh, neuropsychologist and author of The Fear Factor, and Robert Elliott Smith, computer scientist and author of Rage Inside the Machine.
Abigail Marsh:
Things are complicated. You don't always understand other people's interior lives that well. Somebody might believe something totally different from me, but they might have a reason that even if I don't agree with it, I would at least understand how they got there if I had a conversation with them.
Robert Elliott Smith:
The further you get from face-to-face communication with another person, the more dangerous communication becomes. We all know this. And the reason is because there's a lot more to communication than simply symbolic communication through the written word or through the abbreviated written word and Twitter. Human communication is extremely complex, as is all human interaction.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Neuropsychologist, computer scientist, but same wavelength.
Abigail Marsh:
We're animals! The way that the people around us smell and sound and feel. Those are all things that moderate our brain activity at a really primitive level that we are only beginning to understand.
Robert Elliott Smith:
Rehumanize as much as possible your interactions. Open up your channels of communication to other people, because you're a part of the way the network is structured.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And no one knows the importance of face to face communication more than stand-up comedians. In safer times, they travel around the country, say provocative things and entertain people of all political persuasions. Like our featured guest early in Season One, Myq Kaplan.
Myq Kaplan:
And I remember I went to a few towns within a few hours of Fairbanks. And I remember that one seemed (I don't know if they identified it as such) like a cowboy bar of a kind. At the time, I probably had a lot of jokes that were jokes about, let's say, pro-gay marriage. And a cowboy type man, came up to me afterwards and he said something like, “I don't agree with everything that you say, but thanks for coming, and it was enjoyable.”
Robert Pease (host):
So, Emily, let’s try to sum this up. We are born with this innate social tendency to tribalize. And that tribalism really comes to life in our zero sum two-party political system.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And we let loose a partisan media storm which polarized a whole lot of people into opposing camps.
And that may seem bad enough. But wait...there’s more. A lot more. You also have to factor in the structural issues of our elections.
Robert Pease (host):
Charles Wheelan, founder of Unite America, outlined this in our second episode, “The Frontlines of Partisanship.”
Charles Wheelan:
Anyone who's been watching TV for more than 15 years knows that's new, the rise of television news, where you pick your ideology; the rise of social media, where not only are you hearing the echo chamber, but also think about something like gerrymandering. Now, big data allows us to gerrymander better than we used to, which means more safe seats, which means the primaries matter more. They're more expensive races. Who do you get the money from? The people who are the most extreme. Every single force is pushing us apart.
Robert Pease (host):
So when you meet someone who’s really hyperpartisan, you really have to hold all these things together in your mind. First those innate tendencies, and that negative partisanship.
Abigail Marsh:
Think about a herd of musk ox clustering together.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
The polarizing effects of a two party system.
Geoffrey Kabaservice:
In a rational system we would have at least four different parties.
Robert Pease (host):
The divisive and inflammatory role of not all media, but a whole bunch of it.
Dominic Stecula:
The majority of content is now partisan.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And those election distortions.
Charles Wheelan:
Every single force is pushing us apart.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Seems like a perfect storm. But one of our own creation. So the question is: could we possibly undo it?
Robert Pease (host):
And that, Emily, is my own personal bias in creating this show for primarily an audience of independents. I feel that the red and blue factions in this country are too mired in political identities. That means independent citizens and voters and media are the best and possibly only hope.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
Independent voters are a huge block of Americans, but are they engaged enough to do that? Some of our guests are not so sure, like former Congressman Jason Altmire.
Jason Altmire:
So you are seeing great disgust in the country with the polarization that we see all around us. Some people have chosen to disengage from the political process and just not vote and not participate. That is clearly not the right answer, but the other problem is people have become disgusted and they've left the Democratic and the Republican party and they've become independents. And now they've disenfranchised themselves in many states: they can't participate in primary elections.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
My own bias works a little differently. And maybe I’m just too hopeful. But moderates and people of both major parties are also concerned about partisanship. I’m thinking about Stephen Hawkins of the research group More in Common and their definition of the Exhausted Majority of Americans.
Stephen Hawkins:
We identified four tribes that we described as belonging to something called the exhausted majority, which is two-thirds of Americans. What they shared was a sense of fatigue at American politics and a sense that their voices weren't necessarily reflected in the debates in the political space and in the media.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And I do think all of these organizations working to combat polarization will make a difference. I’d point to our episode on Alaska Ballot Measure Two as a case in point.
Shea Siegert:
How are we going to provide Alaska voters with the most voice, the most choice, and the most power? And we found that open primaries and ranked choice voting and financial disclosure was that way.
Robert Pease (host):
But Alaska may be a special case, with non-partisans being about 60% of their voters. It won’t be easy to do that in a lot of states.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
We will hear a lot more about that in Season 2 of the Purple Principle as we visit states dealing with hyperpartisanship.
Robert Pease (host):
But the next episode will be Part 2 of the Season 1 finale, “Stemming the Tide of Polarization.”
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And we’ll revisit some of the awesome Season 1 guests trying to do just that, such as Trevor Potter, former Chair of the Federal Election Commission and Founder of Campaign Legal Center, working to combat gerrymandering.
Trevor Potter:
We do think there are opportunities in a number of states to argue that a gerrymander, if that's what the legislature does, violates that state constitution.
Emily Crocetti (reporter):
And John Opdycke of Open Primaries, working to fully franchise independent voters in primary elections.
John Opdycke:
Politicians who get elected in open public primary systems are much better elected officials. They actually are incentivized to work with members of the other party. Candidates that get elected in these closed, partisan primaries, they have absolutely no incentive to govern, to represent their constituents. Their job is to represent the 5-10% of partisan warriors that get them elected every two years in the primary. That's all they care about. It's not because they're evil people or stupid people. That's how the election system is set up.
Robert Pease (host):
Please join us then. Share us on social media, and subscribe to our newsletter, “The Purple Principle In Print” via our website. It’s a free summary of purplish events and issues around the country. And while subscribing you can also leave us audio comments and suggestions at purpleprinciple.com. This is Robert Pease with Emily Crocetti for the Purple Principle team: Alison Byrne, producer; Kevin A. Kline, senior audio guru; Emily Holloway, senior researcher and fact-checker; Johnnie Dowling, research associate. Original music composed and created by Ryan Adair Rooney.
